No Surprises (Unfortunately)
Senate cloture bid on energy bill fails is the story this morning from “The Hill.” With 60 votes necessary to close debate and proceed to a vote on the superb energy package that came over from the House yesterday, only 53 votes could be mustered. Three Democrats, Byrd, Landrieu and Bayh voted against closure. Byrd (coal) and Landrieu (oil) were predictable, but Bayh’s vote is a bit of a mystery, to me anyway. On the Republican side, I can’t understand why some of these “Moderate” Republicans would vote against cloture, people like Sununu, Specter and Hagel, except that they need to stay on the “reservation.” What’s completely inexplicable to me is why John Warner, coauthor of the climate change bill in the Senate, would vote against this energy package which should be considered a precursor and complement to a climate change package. Back to the drawing board, as the Senate Republican pointman on energy, Pete Domenici, has promised, according to the article from “The Hill.” Oh well, as I’ve said before here, it’s usually wise not to make the best the enemy of the good. (“Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” – Voltaire.)
Meanwhile, down in Bali, at the climate change talks, the head of the U.S. delegation has declared “…that neither a recent US Senate committee move to limit greenhouse gas emissions or the decision by Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol would influence their stance” on mandatory GHG reductions. (See my post from Dec. 5 on the Senate’s action and this from Nov. 25 on Australia’s new PM and his signing of the Kyoto Protocols.) See the story from Agence France Presse, US sticks to divisive climate change policy: official.
As noted here on Dec. 2, at least the U.S. has what appears to be a constructive proposal on trade and fostering environmental goods and services.
Meanwhile, our brothers and sisters in Germany are leading the charge against global warming. See another AFP story, Germany passes ‘ambitious’ climate change package, from yesterday. Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: “Germany wants to show that a developed country can reconcile economic growth with protection of the environment.” And Economy Minister Michael Glos said Europe’s biggest economy was aiming for “intelligent and ambitious climate protection.” Germany is shooting for a 25 to 30% share of energy production by renewables by 2020 — and we’re going to cut our 15% proposal loose to satisfy the utility industry. As noted the other day, Scotland has set a target of 50% of all electricity from renewables by 2020,” according to the “Press Association” here. More power, as it were, to them — and shame on us, or at least on our dysfunctional politics, so seriously flawed by special interest influence.
Is this shying away from our extraordinary potential to change the way we use energy and the way our economy is shaped an indication of the will of the American people? Apparently not. An analysis of recent international poll results not only indicate Robust Global Support For Increased Efforts to Reduce Emissions but that a majority of Americans (54%) disapproved of how the United States was handling global warming.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Maybe we are going about this thing all wrong — trying to attack the many arms of the Climate Change problem instead of going for its eye.
On the face of it, Climate Change is a problem of excess CO2 emissions. But analyse deeper, and one finds that it’s a problem of overconsumption by all of us, individuals, corporates, government.
Analyse still deeper, and one finds that overconsumption is triggered by and funded by CREDIT. There is an overabundance of bank credit — far out of proportion to actual earnings and savings — that gives people the power to overspend and overconsume.
So this is where the cancerous tumour can be clearly isolated from human flesh. This is where we can start cutting away surgically, methodically, without hurting too many people.
CONSUMER CREDIT — loans extended by banks for purchase of new vehicles and consumer appliances — is a major artery feeding this tumour. Easy loans warp our purchasing decisions, making our desires seem like needs.
Two calls from an aggressive marketer of car loans is all I need to make me feel that I NEED to step up from my family car to an SUV.
CREDIT CARDS make one feel really wealthy, by enabling one to securely carry large amounts equivalent to many months’ earnings in ones wallet.
And when you do that, you are potentially able to do all those wonderful, beautiful, generous things that you see in TV commercials like buying your wife a diamond solitaire, booking the Presidential suite for your wedding anniversary or surprising her with a couple of air-tickets to Paris.
Consumer credit and credit-cards are the hot air causing the great big Economic Growth balloon to go up… and up… and up.
Driven by this excessive consumer demand, a number of industries flourish, new corporates are created, and new factories get built, diversified, expanded, acquired… We aren’t only borrowing economically, we are borrowing ecologically.
Suggested line of action: At an individual level, we should stop buying things with credit, and stop using our credit cards. It is worth cutting up our credit cards. Let us stop borrowing from the future.
And as a community of concerned citizens, let us lobby for a clampdown on consumer credit. Let us write to the government, to our Central Banks and to individual banks and bankers.
Let each person in the banking industry be targetted with this message: Cap and roll back. Let us ask for a freeze of consumer credit at current levels this year, and a 50% reduction in the amounts of credit given each year.
This would give the economy about three years to adjust to the changing scenario.
Three years is 36 months — far more time than the economy and its stakeholders get for adjustment when the stock-markets crash. So why delay, postpone and vacillate?
Warmly,
Krishnaraj Rao
http://friendlyghost.rediffiland.com
http://globalwarming.rediffiland.com
January 17th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Some ideas on how to seek Economic Sustainability:
1) Individual consumers need to consciously consume less of whatever it is that they consume. The government or NGOs should incentivate families to benchmark their current levels of consumption on various fronts, then reduce them. Consuming fewer air-miles each successive year should be high on our list of priorities, considering their huge addition to our individual carbon footprint. (As a cheap and effective alternative to flying, we may consider video-conferencing.)
2) Advertising aimed at making people buy more should be tapered off. Only adverts giving information should be allowed.
3) Roadside advertising hoardings should be reduced by 50%, and they should not be illuminated, as they use up precious energy for a relatively non-productive purpose.
4) Stop adding power generation capacities, whether thermal or otherwise. Freeze them at existing capacities and merely replace thermal capacities with wind-energy and solar generation capacities.
5) Stop registering new private vehicles. NGOs or government should incentivate people to give up private transport (for instance by giving them free passes on public transport with 10-year validity.)
6) Each year, taper off the numbers of private transport wheels by 10% or more, and enhance the capacity of public transport by 20%. This will result in a net improvement in the quality of transportation and reduced congestion each year. Also encourage biking and hiking by improving the quality of roadsides, and including rest facilities (lounges) every kilometre or two.
7) Enforce a one-child policy with both carrot and stick. This means that within the span of 60-70 years, population would go down by about 50%.
This is not saying that we shall have no more problems, and shall live happily ever after. Every situation and every lifestyle inevitably has its own set of problems… and we shall have to be alert and aware to deal with them as they arise.
Warmly,
Krish
http://friendlyghost.rediffiland.com
http://globalwarming.rediffiland.com